I agree with Basstrack17. The hate in here is a bit thick from some folks. Having owned both of the vehicles in question (sans the S/C as it was still long off when I owned the tC), I would be very curious to see how the S/C changed the dynamics of my old tC (already had the TRD springs/struts, and 17" Gramlights). It certainly would have added to the 'fun factor'!!

 

Hey 007, please don't speeak for me. Killer is stating his opinion, and just because he doesn't think the tC is a all that and a bag of chips—which, as a tC owner, I will readily admit it's good but it will not out handle an Si, especially without a fair amount of extra $ and mods. If you disagree with him make intelligent posts site facts and debate him, rather than resorting to troll-like name calling and finger pointing.

Do you know what irony is? Cause you nailed it here.

 

^ Thanks.

I think the tC is a great car, but this is comparing performance of two cars and possibly comparing the potential of both tC and Si. While the tC is a nice car, Si does have more overall potential regardless of the displacement the 2az has. Although it is a bigger motor (2az), it has no where near the full potential of a K20 does in the respect theres not enough aftermarket to push the 2az yet. Even if one day there was, its still very questionable. The design of honda motors is just incredible and what they can produce is even more insane...Especially whp per liter.

 

Well, I would esaily side with you in saying that the performance of the Si is better, but I could never agree that the K20 and the Si have more potential. Maybe your life would be easier with the aftermarket support of the K20 and its variants, but as far as I see, that just helps the unimaginative people who arent willing to put their own work and research into their cars. The 2AZ is a good engine and the only reason it doesnt spin to 9000rpm and has a CR of 11.0:1, is becasue toyota designed it to go into a wide variety of vehicles, not just sport oriented ones.
Honda does design great motors, they are one of the best designers of N/A engines right up there with BMW (IMHO), but please dont descredit Toyota cause they are just as good. The output for the JDM TRD Celica is equal to that of the JDM Integra R and that from a smaller displacement engine. And when you look at Hondas whp/l it certainly doesnt look as good as as their bhp/l figure.
The only credit I could ever think of giving Honda over Toyota, is that they usually put a great gear box (as in better ratios suited to the engines power band) in their cars..and thats it. Period.

 

Even with creativity going in with putting their own work into the car, I still believe the K20 over-rules the 2az. Especially when you talked jdm, not too many motors can be reliable and out perform the K20a platform.

I'm not trying to discredit Toyota motors, however 90% of the motors Toyota produces (today, not talking about the past. and i'm also referring to usdm cars/trucks) is geared and built upon economy, not performance. Honda, has perfected the economy issues as Toyota has, but they have also combined economy with performance. Something Toyota lacks now without the celica gts, mr2 and a few other great performing cars. Honda motors like it or not, is a better performing platform vs. Toyota. I'm not saying Toyota engines don't have potential, even the 1nz motors have potential once ecu and a few other things are mastered. Now back to tC and Si, tC is a great car. The motor is also a great motor to build up, i'm not saying it isn't nor have i said it was. However, compared to the K20z there really isn't much of a contest. Especially when you look at overall performance of the car and how it was designed, the 06' Si is something the tC isn't and will never be as far as overall performance. (not just the motor)

 

^ Never say never..

 

Yall need to find a woman or something and quit griping over the Si. Its more performance, but it costs more. Done deal.

Peace.

 

ok i read this damn article and truthfully as one who loves the tC and wanted the S/C the car......it ____ed me off.......the fact that the price and all that was different i could care less.......the fact that a S/C'ed tC is runnin a horribly ____ poor 15.1 in the 1/4 mile wich is equal to the stock Si Civic........no it dont work for me......i think tC's r faster then that and i think by lot more i wouldnt say that it runs a 15.1 its vry not likely....my opinion,......civics r overated and the tC better be better lol

 

So that wasn't a bais post. The 06' Si is not over-rated, its worth evey penny. Infact, imo, all Si's weren't over-rated. Most Honda's aren't over-rated, the reason why you hear so many good things from them is their potential and such common, "easy" motor swaps. They are pretty famous for their whp per liter.

The s/c is only putting out (with no other mods) around 185whp. The 06' Si puts out stock around 175-180whp. With the gearing, weight and other differences it makes sense that they would have pretty much equal times. And with both cars using stock/factory suspension/tires, Si handles better.

 

Over-Rated..in every sense of the word

 

Poorly conducted test parameters. End of subject

 

On the topic of underrated cars, that Scion xB is a sweet handling vehicle. Road and Track's road test of it produced a whopping .71gs of lateral acceleration, and a slalom speed of 57.9 mph. With numbers like those, it slightly edges out a Dodge Caravan. I'm sure this car will take the auto-x world by storm.

 

You have an answer for everything don't you? Too bad your answers show no actual knowledge to back them up.

Sc tC: 185-190whp (just the s/c)
06' Si: 175-180whp.

We are only talking about 5-10whp difference in which the Si makes up with the better/more aggressive gearing and not to mention, geared to use all whp effectivly. Also, the 50-100lbs difference within the tC and Si plays a role as well when you talk about such little difference in whp numbers.

Bottom line, for the tC to pull the same 1/4 times as Si, tC needs the s/c to match a stock 06' Si.

People talk about how the 06' Si is so over-rated, personally i think the trd s/c is over-rated. Main reason half the people buy the s/c is because they are scared of warranties. Much better set ups imo than what trd has to offer for the 2az.

 

killerxromances
Tests on the tC were conducted with 18 inch rims instead of 17s
Seriously, just the money for those rims along would've equip the tC with suspension to take the Si head on.
In addition to that, they added pretty lil duhickeys (on the tC) instead of real performance parts.
killerxromances

 

You keep mentioning this more agressive gearing on the Si, but in actuality, its not at all. The Si has a top speed of 36 in first, and 55 in second. Compare this to the tC, with a top speed of 31 in first, and 53 in second. It seems to me that the tC has slightly more agressive gearing.

 

There are some ignorant asses in here. tC > Si if you dont agree get the ____ outta here.

 

Ironically that was a ignorant responce. If you can't respect other peoples opinions than you don't belong on scionlife, or any other car forum for that matter.

cmn; while the tC seems like it has shorter gearing, the Si also revs higher. Take this into effect, and the gearing is slightly more aggressive. If the tC redlined at 8,000rpm, its top speed in 1st would probably be around 42 or so. If the Si's top speed was identical to the tC's, it would be an extremely close ratio.

R2D2; those 18's don't weight that much more than the 17's. Give it up, quit making up excuses. I've been saying this on this thread for a while, everyone keeps avoiding the truth by just making up excuses as to why the tC was tied with the Si.

 

I might also add the fact that the tC did tie with 1/4 times with the Si, instead of looking at this negativly you should look at it in a positive way. The Si is a true sports compact, the tC really isn't. I mean, yes its a sports compact but totally on the other end of the spectrum than the Si.

Every tC owner i talk to and know personally, can accept the fact the Si is a better performing car than the tC. Why is it so hard for you guys to accept it? You guys talk about how the Si is crap because its a honda. Honda and Toyota both are very similar, i've said this before. The only difference is, Honda puts more thought into performance with their motors per class than Toyota does. Toyota is a little more conservative compared to Honda. Theres nothing wrong with that, but its fact.

You guys need to realize the tC's place in the compact world, its not on top of the food chain. It's funny how everyone compares the tC to all these sport compacts, and when they aren't as good as the other compact they find excuses and get all bent out of shape because of it. It's a nice car, but it still has a ton of room to grow as far as aftermarket and performance goes.

 

Truth is something you can't admit 2.
I can say yes, the Si probably has better handling than the tC, but if you can't tell the difference between 17s and 18s you shouldn't even speak .

 

Um, when did i say i couldn't tell a difference between 17's and 18's? Only thing i said is the 18's aren't that much more heavier than the 17's. The way you said it sounded like we were comparing weight of rotas vs. 19'' solid chrome.

And if i'm not mistaken, the Si's rims were also upgraded to alloy's. I could be wrong, but either way it really doesn't matter that much.

They both tied in 1/4, they tested it and they showed the numbers. Dyno numbers are also very similar between the two (tc with just s/c) as well. Not that hard to figure out.